Originally Posted By woody "woody, when you come to a fork in the road, do you take it?" It usually make a right turn. Is this what you're asking? No U-turns here.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The thing is, the right turns lead to the wide and easy path and we all know where that path leads... ;-)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47233" target="_blank">http://worldnetdaily.com/news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47233</a> >>In fact, Moore didn't even grow up in Flint, but rather nearby Davison. His father was not the working stiff struggling to make ends meet that he portrays, but a General Motors employee who worked from 6 a.m. until 2 p.m. and played golf every afternoon at a private country club and who had four weeks of paid vacation and retired comfortably at the age of 53. Before "Roger & Me" hit it big in 1989, Moore had already received an advance from a New York publisher for $50,000, another $50,000 from Mother Jones magazine upon termination as an editor and a $20,000 grant from Ralph Nader. After "Roger & Me," he became fabulously wealthy by nearly any standard. When Moore flew to London to be interviewed by the BBC or to promote a film, he flew the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But, according to the book, he would also keep a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he would meet with journalists to maintain his image as a "man of humble circumstances." His 10-acre, waterfront home today is on Michigan's Torch Lake, one of the three most beautiful lakes in the world, according to National Geographic. He was accused by authorities of despoiling a wetland – just like many of the greedy, robber-baron land-grabbers he criticizes – when he tried to expand his private beach. Moore also owns a penthouse in New York City. That was his official residence until 2003 when he switched to Michigan. That coincided with the success of "Bowling for Columbine," which brought him millions in profits – profits that would have been taxed at a rate of 7.7 percent in New York, as opposed to 3.9 percent in Michigan, saving him hundreds of thousands of dollars. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>If she co-owns several businesses, they are quite likely small businesses. And if I, say, start a business that employs me and two part-time assistants, does that make it a "strictly non-union business?" What are the criteria here?<< <a href="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47233" target="_blank">http://worldnetdaily.com/news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47233</a> >>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species. << Here is a link to the resort in question... <a href="http://www.aubergedusoleil.com/" target="_blank">http://www.aubergedusoleil.com /</a> Amazing, I know of many hotels, resorts and restaurants that use Union employees, and many are small businesses, and not just large chains.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/12944783.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tallahassee.com/mld /democrat/news/opinion/12944783.htm</a> >>But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., can upbraid the Bush administration's labor policies, confident that Washington reporters won't ask about her own family businesses eschewing labor unions, Schweizer says.<< >>Insulated by fame and wealth, major liberals can "focus on far-away or abstract matters," he says, rather than the daily necessities of paying taxes, worrying about crime (that's why they ride limos instead of subways) or educating their children (private schools for them, no tuition vouchers for others). "And who can blame them?" he asks. "It's a lot more satisfying to call someone else a racist than to actually practice affirmative action yourself, with all the trouble that entails. In short, they seem more interested in compelling others to embrace their vision of social change than in acting on that vision themselves."<<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy This time 1 year and 3 days ago, Michael Moore was the hero, the savior, the voice of the left.] Kinda like Cindy Sheehan is now. Once Bush won he quickly went the way of other fat socialist America haters. Of course, capitalism and Haliburtan have been very good to Mike.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The guy writing the book looks at a few celebrities and concludes that all liberals are hypocrites.<< Well, there's about as simplistic a take as I've read. The blurbs that have been cited in this thread tell us that the following are included in this author's work: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Barbra Streisand and George Soros. It is safe to assume that there are more. I do not read anywhere here that the conclusion is that all liberals are hypocrites. Rather, the conclusion (which is inescapable) is that a number of prominent and vocal liberals are hypocrites. I am surprised that no one immediately cited the liberal celebrities who (famously) live their beliefs. (Ed Begley and Sean Penn leap to mind.) But the point of this book isn't that liberals are good or bad-- only that many highly vocal liberals are hypocrites. Period.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.> Pelosi may or may not be a hypocrite, but who can tell from that blurb (which had no real details attached to it). "Partly owns?" I partly own Ford Motor company, I guess - it's in one of my mutual funds for my 401k. What is the extent of her ownership? Does she have a controlling interet? Any say in how these businesses are run? If not, perhaps she should divest herself of them anyway if she really feels she should own only union businesses. But that's quite different from having a controlling interest or having a say in how they're run. Also, because a business is non-union doesn't necessarily mean it treats its workers badly or pays badly (something a Republican should know). Too much unexplained here. And do you not think there might be GOP pols who own shares in non-union businesses, environmentally unsound businesses, etc? So which is worse? A pol who works to better the environment and worker conditions who partly owns businesses who have contrary practices, and thus is subject to charges of hypocrisy... or a pol who partly owns such businesses AND actively works to lesson environmental standards and worker conditions. The latter may not be a hypocrite, but I wouldn't exactly call him admirable either.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/9/205510.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/articles/2005/11/9/205510.shtml</a> >>The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles. But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif. The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop. The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. "But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food," Schweizer writes in NewsMax Magazine. "As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door." Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment. "With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue – it's an ethic. It's a value." That's what she says. Schweizer uncovered what she does: One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif. To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage. But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private – and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment. What's more, the course was causing a drawdown in the freshwater aquifer, which could have serious implications for wildlife in the area. So much for worrying about the environment.<<
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder You'd think , after all your bloated threads about the propositions, that you'd learn not to post these things, Darkbeer. But noooooo, petulance is apparently a good thing....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Again, does she have controlling interest or any say in how these companies do business, or is she a passive investor? That's a pretty big difference.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Again, does she have controlling interest or any say in how these companies do business, or is she a passive investor? That's a pretty big difference.<< As we may find out when it comes to Sen. Frist...
